Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 351 (TRI)

Prantosh Debnath v. Md. Ramij Ali

2022-08-29

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. K.C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 09.12.2021 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.T.S.(MAC)21 of 2019 dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the claimant appellant has filed the application before the court below under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation due to the injuries suffered by him in a road accident which took place on 24.04.2016. While the claimant appellant was returning from Amtali towards his house at Khayerpur by riding his motorcycle, a bus bearing registration No.TR-07-1237 dashed him rashly and negligently from his backside for which he suffered grievous injuries. Thereafter, the doctors of AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala treated him and he was referred by the Standing Medical Board to the Institute of Neuro Science, Kolkata for better treatment. Accordingly, he was treated by the doctors w.e.f. 15.04.2016 13.05.2016 and advised him to keep in touch with the doctor of the said hospital in future. 4. After the said accident took place on 24.04.2016, a police case was registered as East Agartala P.S. Case No.39 of 2016 under Sections 279/338/427 of the IPC and the investigating officer of the case filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TR-07-1237. 5. It has been stated in the claim petition that the claimant appellant is a newspaper hawker and plumber by profession and his monthly income is Rs.15,000/- per month and due to the said accident, he has lost his working ability and for that reason, he claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. 6. The respondent No.1 after receiving notice from the court did not appear before the court. As a result of which the court proceed the case as ex parte against the owner of the vehicle. 7. The respondent No.2, Insurance Company had participated in the proceeding and the case was fixed for submission of the examination-in-chief by the claimant on 05.02.2020. The respondent No.1 after receiving notice from the court did not appear before the court. As a result of which the court proceed the case as ex parte against the owner of the vehicle. 7. The respondent No.2, Insurance Company had participated in the proceeding and the case was fixed for submission of the examination-in-chief by the claimant on 05.02.2020. Thereafter, due to pandemic situation, the claimant appellant could not make contact with his appointed Advocate for a long period and during that period, all the legal Courts were imposed restrictions on the litigants form physical presence in the court proceedings. So, the claimant appellant could not remain present in the court as well as in the chamber of the appointed Advocate and due to that reason on 09.12.2021, the learned learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala dismissed the claim petition of the claimant appellant on the ground that without evidence, it cannot be said that the claim of the claimant is proved and justified. 8. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal on 09.12.2021, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal. 9. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that during the pandemic situation there was restriction of physical appearance of the litigants in the court premises and during that period, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court has also imposed the same restrictions on the litigants. So, the claimant-appellant could not remain present in the court as well as in the chamber. He has fairly submitted that the claimant-appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for not attending the court in this pandemic situation. 10. He has submitted that the learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition on 09.12.2021 when the claimant appellant received a notice from the National Lok Adalat, 2021 to remain present on 11.12.2021 at 10.00 am to 3.00 pm before the National Lok Adalat. Since the matter was placed before the National Lok Adalat on 11.12.2021, the learned Tribunal have rejected the claim case of the claimant appellant on 09.12.2021 for non-appearance of the claimant-appellants. He has preferred this appeal to get the compensation which he has prayed for. 11. On the other side, Mr. Since the matter was placed before the National Lok Adalat on 11.12.2021, the learned Tribunal have rejected the claim case of the claimant appellant on 09.12.2021 for non-appearance of the claimant-appellants. He has preferred this appeal to get the compensation which he has prayed for. 11. On the other side, Mr. K.C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, New India Assurance Company Limited has submitted that it is a fit case for remand back as some documents are also not attached and without evidence, it cannot be said that the claim of the claimant is proved and justified. 12. It is pertinent to note that the claim for compensation which was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act needs to be examined under the pragmatic view as the beneficial legislation and reasonable opportunity needs to be given to the claimant. Since, this court feels that sufficient opportunity was not given to the claimant for adducing the evidence and to make the best efforts for support of his claim. Some more opportunity ought to have been given. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned tribunal is set aside and remand back to consider afresh by giving reasonable opportunity to both sides. The court below shall consider this matter on priority in disposing this matter.